TSA gropes young boy's testicles while he is strip searched in front of everyone

I am disturbed by the number of people in this thread proclaiming "they're just doing their job." At what point do you become responsible for yourself as a human being? At what point do you stop whoring out your humanity for a measly paycheck?

So maybe this security agent wasn't groping the little boy's crotch. Whatever. It was still a shirtless little boy being patted down. Maybe the agent even felt uncomfortable doing it. At what point as the TSA agent (or police officer, or soldier, or insurance agent, or any other field where people often get screwed over in some way) do you say, "You know what? I'm not ok with this," and don't do it? At what point do we collectively say this is not ok, and mean it? At this point? At the point "security" is violently suppressing protests against unfair treatment, like during the civil rights movement? Or do we wait until we've become a full on police state like Nazi Germany? The SS soldiers were also "just doing their jobs."

The thing I find most... crazy? laughable? interesting? ... about all of this is it's all being done in the name of protection against terrorists. We're talking about people with such conviction of belief, they're often willing to kill themselves to accomplish their goals. No number of fake security measures will stop someone who is smart enough, determined enough and desperate enough that they're willing to die. Instead of being a bunch of cowards and handing over all our power to others out of fear, we need to accept that we can't control every possibility. There will always be some loophole, some weakness that someone will figure out, even if we had a repressive police state in effect where everyone was thoroughly strip searched before they boarded a plane.

Instead of all this BS security, our energy would be better spent trying to understand why so many want to destroy us in the first place, then work on fixing that. Unfortunately, because the answer to that doesn't involve "resenting our freedom" or "Islam" like so many have been conditioned to believe, but more "our desire to assert our authority and maintain US and/or Western hegemony in the world so certain corporations can fatten their bank accounts," I don't think this will ever happen. Even still, I'm not willing to give up my freedom for a false sense of security one pat down or radiated plane ride at a time, and I'm alarmed that there are so many here who are.

Originally posted by Cassandra5Finish

Originally posted by nenothtu
Simplest and most direct answer: you target the sort of people who have a track record of blowing things up.

Irish Catholics?
Anti-abortion Christian fanatics?
Muslim extremists?

Yes.

Who are we talking about

Umm.... people who blow things up? What part of that wasn't clear to you? We can add people who want to kill folks for political or religious reasons, I guess. Oh my, is that going to be too complicated for you?

and for a simple and direct answer, how do you identify people that are prone to blow things up. What I am asking is.

WHAT DO THEY LOOK LIKE?

What they "look like" is only part of the identification process, and a small, fallible part at that. You also have to pay attention to what they act like, what various pieces of paper and computer screens have to say about them, that sort of thing. There are lots of indicators. If you want a full course in it, there are places you can get that education. ATS is not one of them.

For example, when I was guarding a bank, I didn't pay nearly as much attention to the guy in a 3 piece suit carrying a deposit bag as I did the guy in a hoodie and sunglasses, who kept his hands in his pockets and seemed to be trying to look everywhere at once.

So you are going to profile potential terrorists by looking for hoods and sunglasses or is bank robbery completely irelevant to the question?

I see that examples that there are things that should put one on the alert, given a certain set of circumstances, and extrapolation therefrom is a bit beyond your reasoning ability. My apologies for confusing you like that. My advice to you is to let someone else look for them. Don't try it at home. Clearly you aren't cut out for that sort of thing.

I could give you another example, like folks who wear bulky coats in hot weather, but it would only confuse you more, and you might start thinking THAT was the only thing to look for as well. There IS no "only thing" to look for. You look for things that are out of place, and apply common sense. If you want "simple" this just isn't the field for you.

All of that and you have still not answered my question.

Yeah, I did. I can't help it if it wasn't the answer you wanted. All I can do is provide the correct answer, not necessarily the one that is convenient for you to get an argument started with.

What do they look like?

They may as well be invisible. If you are hung up on looks, you'll miss them.

I get that if you are trying to stop terror, you target terrorists. That is not an answer. Can you please explain to me how you decide who looks like someone that should be targeted and who does not. I am assuming profiling must be at least close to full proof so all you need to do is give me the profile. Please.

I get paid big bucks to teach these things to other folks. How much are you offering? It involves a series of lessons. 40 hours of classroom just won't do it.

Neither will the simple answer you seek cut it. Simple answers are for simple minds. That isn't you, and it isn't me, so stop trying to boil it down to a word. That just won't work. If you're serious about wanting to get an education in how to ID suspicious folks, I'm sure there is a place somewhere nearby to where you are that can offer that education. I got mine at the police academy, and it took a year to get it. Then when I got out in the real world, I suddenly discovered that only a year didn't begin to cover it, it only gave me the basics to build upon.

I went on to get more specialized training in narrower fields, such as counter-terrorism, but THAT training only gives one something to build upon as well. No class, no lesson, and no one sentence is EVER going to cover everything you will run into. It's only a foundation that you will have to apply logic to as situations arise.

And you want all of that in a single sentence?

That single sentence will be this, then "They are invisible, so you will have to look for invisible things, and look for those invisible things ALL THE TIME."

What a waste of time and effort. The little boy could have several pounds of high explosive in his rectum and sqeezing his testlcles is not going to find it. Does TSA actually think a terrorist would have a bomb in his pants? What fools.

reply to post by earthdude


Lol well a terrorist did have some sort of explosives in his pants. And his distraught father tried to tell the authorities that. Here they are given the information free and clear and did not act upon it, leaving ordinary citizens, a.k.a "potential terrorists" to deal with it. Oh yes, given such events, I feel so much safer now knowing the elderly and disabled and children are being subjected to intense scrutiny, as opposed to say, angry Muslims whose own fathers are reporting them or a known criminal escaping Europe under both a figurative veil of political correctness and a literal veil worn by Muslim women. Btw, I'm not picking on your post, I'm just referencing it slightly,

reply to post by Danbones


Unless you have x-ray vision neither did you. You could tell he was in the groin area for all of 3 seconds DOING A PAT DOWN. but there were people in the way. I will say i am confused to why they took his shirt off but this was no strip search. It looks like he even patted him on the head and reassured him.

The whole thing lasted less than 2 minutes for God's sake! Keep spreading the fear to the sheeple!

Feel free to flame me I do not care I am done with this subject

reply to post by ericsnow


This clip has been all over the MSM networks, and the story goes that after TSA agents wanted to pat the young boy down, The father took off his sons shirt in an attempt to speed up the process.

Originally posted by nenothtu
Yes.

So anyone and everyone then?

Umm.... people who blow things up? What part of that wasn't clear to you? We can add people who want to kill folks for political or religious reasons, I guess. Oh my, is that going to be too complicated for you?

Apparently it is too complicated for you because this will be the third time I have to ask you to explain how you identify people that blow things up by looking at them. Why are you having so much trouble answering that?

What they "look like" is only part of the identification process, and a small, fallible part at that. You also have to pay attention to what they act like, what various pieces of paper and computer screens have to say about them, that sort of thing. There are lots of indicators. If you want a full course in it, there are places you can get that education. ATS is not one of them.

So you have no idea then?

I see that examples that there are things that should put one on the alert, given a certain set of circumstances, and extrapolation therefrom is a bit beyond your reasoning ability. My apologies for confusing you like that. My advice to you is to let someone else look for them. Don't try it at home. Clearly you aren't cut out for that sort of thing.

If you are going to apologize, do so for avoiding the one and only question I have asked so many times now. I am not the least bit concerned with how to identify potential bank robbers. That is a completely different set of metrics and would not help here. I asked you to explain how you profile potential plane bombers. I thought it was a simple question. What can I do to make it easier for you to understand?

I could give you another example, like folks who wear bulky coats in hot weather, but it would only confuse you more, and you might start thinking THAT was the only thing to look for as well. There IS no "only thing" to look for. You look for things that are out of place, and apply common sense. If you want "simple" this just isn't the field for you.

So out of all these lengthy posts, all you can come up with is bulky jackets and then just say it is part of an array of things to look for. How many times do I need to ask you what to look for? Either you have an answer or you are just repeating what you have been told will sound good. You have yet to give me an answer at all. One example that you yourself dismiss as worthless for its lack of scope hardly cuts it. I am sorry one simple question is causing so much hardship for you. Maybe I just assumed that you had something behind what you were saying and that is my fault. I should not have asked you to explain your words since it seems to be an impossibility.

Yeah, I did. I can't help it if it wasn't the answer you wanted. All I can do is provide the correct answer, not necessarily the one that is convenient for you to get an argument started with.

You have not actually provided any answer. You answer so far is "look for stuff." Yeah, that helps. You training security officers with that?

They may as well be invisible.

If you are hung up on looks, you'll miss them.

Considering the fact that out of place behavior would be something you would observe through the gift of sight, it is all about looks. Are you telling me that you can smell them?

I get paid big bucks to teach these things to other folks. How much are you offering? It involves a series of lessons. 40 hours of classroom just won't do it.

Considering this exchange, I find it hard to believe you have much to teach. I have only asked one simple question and that has basically tossed you into a tail spin. From the preview I am getting, I would hardly offer up dime one for any lessons.

Basically what you are saying is that now that I have questioned your statement and you have realized you have no real answer, you will hide behind pretending your answer is worth money. Cute.

Neither will the simple answer you seek cut it. Simple answers are for simple minds. That isn't you, and it isn't me, so stop trying to boil it down to a word. That just won't work. If you're serious about wanting to get an education in how to ID suspicious folks, I'm sure there is a place somewhere nearby to where you are that can offer that education. I got mine at the police academy, and it took a year to get it. Then when I got out in the real world, I suddenly discovered that only a year didn't begin to cover it, it only gave me the basics to build upon.

You are twisting everything I said in order to pervert it into something more easily sidestepped. I never once asked that it be boiled down to one word and you know that.

Why is the sky blue?
Refraction.

Simple answers are often the best answers.

I went on to get more specialized training in narrower fields, such as counter-terrorism, but THAT training only gives one something to build upon as well. No class, no lesson, and no one sentence is EVER going to cover everything you will run into. It's only a foundation that you will have to apply logic to as situations arise.

Maybe see about getting that money back. I asked what to look for how many times now? You still have not given me an answer. In fact, in order to even try, you had to use a bank because apparently an airport would have been confusing? I am not convinced, sorry.

And you want all of that in a single sentence?

Again, this is not something I ever said and you know that.

That single sentence will be this, then "They are invisible, so you will have to look for invisible things, and look for those invisible things ALL THE TIME."

Strawman.

You completely invented an argument to attack. You do not need me for that. I never asked for one word, or one sentence. You do not even seem clear on which lie to go with.

I'll tell you what would stop those TSA agents dead in their tracks (well, not literally), and at the very least make it extremely unpleasant for them to go about a detailed pat-down of anyone. If most people who intend on flying were to lay off the deodorant and skimp on the personal hygiene for at least a week (longer is better, if you and your loved ones can stand it) AND opt for the pat-down I bet that would be a real quick way to get thru security! Any TSA agent with a working pair of nostrils (unless you get the misfortune of having an agent who has a bad head cold, then oh-well....) won't spend much time on you at all, and certainly wouldn't want to go poking under clothes.

How about "stink up the skies" day?!!

But seriously, this has gotten to be ridiculous when you have cancer survivors being asked to remove a prosthetic breast and someone with an ostomy bag full of urine that gets busted open by gov't goons. I got turned off with flying long ago (I was one of those who basically had to, if I wanted to get any time off work to be able to see my parents over the holidays when I was working out west) when it became nearly impossible to sit comfortably in a coach seat (I'm a normal-sized 5'3" woman) w/o accidentally jabbing my elbow into the side of one of my seat-mates. Then having the person in the seat in front of me putting their seat back and me having about 2 inches worth of space on my tray table to eat (back in those days I guess I was lucky as they actually served free food) or read. Talk about being treated like cattle - if animals get treated like that it is often considered to be inhumane - being packed like sardines into tiny, cramped spaces and breathing stale air for hours. Now they have all these baggage fees, charges for food, water, blankets, etc....

Honestly now a days if I can get there in two days worth of driving, I drive. I might be wore out when I get where I'm going, but at least I can stop the car whenever I want, open the window, get out and stretch and walk around - and I don't have to go thru some inane security checkpoint. If not, then I will plan on taking buses or a train. My mom and I hope to go on an Alaskan cruise in a couple of years and we are going to take trains to Washington state where will will board a ship. It might take a while, but that's the only way I will go.

But yes, I guess the best one can do now is make life hard for the TSA agents (stink like a skunk, dress in drag, wear tinfoil in your underwear, go commando, etc) and/or refrain from flying if at all possible.

wow! thats insane, We need to wake up here in America and put a stop to this! Ive never seen a bigger display of B.S in my life. How completely unnecessary to search a little kid like that, after the "officer" was finished the dad should have knocked him unconscious.

Originally posted by Cassandra5Finish

Originally posted by nenothtu
Yes.

So anyone and everyone then?

All of those you mentioned. If that is everyone in your little world, then yes, "any one and everyone" - to you. It's not that hard a concept to grasp, and I'm not quite sure why you can't seem to grasp it. My best guess is willful ignorance in pursuit of some sort of argument.

Umm.... people who blow things up? What part of that wasn't clear to you? We can add people who want to kill folks for political or religious reasons, I guess. Oh my, is that going to be too complicated for you?

Apparently it is too complicated for you because this will be the third time I have to ask you to explain how you identify people that blow things up by looking at them. Why are you having so much trouble answering that?

Yes, it DOES appear to be "too complicated" for you. You fail to grasp the simplest concepts, so what is there to make me think it's not a waste of time to attempt explaining more intricate ones to you? My students have to understand the basics before moving on to advanced topics. Since you can't grasp the basics after 2 explanations now, I'm not moving on to advanced explanations. I'm not having any trouble at all answering. I have done so repeatedly now, and won't do it again. Not my problem if you remain willfully ignorant.

What they "look like" is only part of the identification process, and a small, fallible part at that. You also have to pay attention to what they act like, what various pieces of paper and computer screens have to say about them, that sort of thing. There are lots of indicators. If you want a full course in it, there are places you can get that education. ATS is not one of them.

So you have no idea then?

Just because you can't comprehend it, that doesn't mean I'M clueless. Your answer is right there, staring you in the face.

I see that examples that there are things that should put one on the alert, given a certain set of circumstances, and extrapolation therefrom is a bit beyond your reasoning ability. My apologies for confusing you like that. My advice to you is to let someone else look for them. Don't try it at home. Clearly you aren't cut out for that sort of thing.

If you are going to apologize, do so for avoiding the one and only question I have asked so many times now. I am not the least bit concerned with how to identify potential bank robbers. That is a completely different set of metrics and would not help here. I asked you to explain how you profile potential plane bombers. I thought it was a simple question. What can I do to make it easier for you to understand?

I've avoided nothing. Again, it's not MY problem if you can't read what's right there for comprehension. Since your professed confusion is willful, I retract the apology.

I could give you another example, like folks who wear bulky coats in hot weather, but it would only confuse you more, and you might start thinking THAT was the only thing to look for as well. There IS no "only thing" to look for. You look for things that are out of place, and apply common sense. If you want "simple" this just isn't the field for you.

So out of all these lengthy posts, all you can come up with is bulky jackets and then just say it is part of an array of things to look for.

See? I told you right there that it would only confuse you more, and damned if I wasn't right. The basic idea there is things that are out of place. That will go right over your head too.

How many times do I need to ask you what to look for?

I would say until you have your "Ah HA!" moment, but that evidently isn't coming for you. I've given you SEVERAL things to look for, in general AND in particular, and so far they've sailed right over your head. It' not game of Twenty Questions, with an exhaustive list of things to "look for" where you can just plug in answers and check "looks" against a list. It requires independent thought. Maybe that's where you're having problems - you seem to think identifying threats is just a matter of a set list of things as if it were a computer program or something.

Real life isn't like that. People who need a "list" are like the TSA people who are hassling kids, little old ladies, and nuns, while the Next Big Thing may be sneaking right on past them with a gelignite suppository. Thinking one can rely on pre-programmed "lists" are the very reason this situation is in the mess it is. They are not applying critical or independent thought.

Either you have an answer or you are just repeating what you have been told will sound good.

You have the answer too. For the umpteenth time now, it really isn't my problem if you can't - or won't - see it.

You have yet to give me an answer at all.

Again, I've answered you multiple times, and it isn't my problem if you fail to recognize that, for whatever reason you may have.

One example that you yourself dismiss as worthless for its lack of scope hardly cuts it.

It has "cut it" for me for several years now. Of course it WON'T cut it for robots that need a list. Those types tend to get themselves, and worse a lot of other innocent folks, killed permanently dead. Which is why, since you insist on remaining in that camp, I believe you will be better served letting the folks who know what they are doing handle it, and not attempt it yourself.

I am sorry one simple question is causing so much hardship for you. Maybe I just assumed that you had something behind what you were saying and that is my fault. I should not have asked you to explain your words since it seems to be an impossibility.

You seem to be confusing ease of answering with difficulty of comprehending. I've not had any problems answering at all, so I really don't require your apology.

Yeah, I did. I can't help it if it wasn't the answer you wanted. All I can do is provide the correct answer, not necessarily the one that is convenient for you to get an argument started with.

You have not actually provided any answer. You answer so far is "look for stuff." Yeah, that helps. You training security officers with that?

I have provided several answers. Your flippant characterization shows that you have so far failed to grasp even one of them. If you go into the field, I suggest you stay with the safe searches, like little kids and nuns. Yes, I've trained Security Officers and other folks sort of like Security Officers. We're not talking the "door knob rattler" variety here. I have yet to sign off on one who returned to me in a box, so I must have done SOMETHING right. As with any other project, however, it really starts with the raw materials you select. They need to be able to THINK, instead of just read lists.

They may as well be invisible.

If you are hung up on looks, you'll miss them.

Considering the fact that out of place behavior would be something you would observe through the gift of sight, it is all about looks. Are you telling me that you can smell them?

NO! It's NOT about looks or sight! It's about PERCEPTION, which you seem to be having a inordinate amount of trouble with! Just "SEEING" something or someone DOES NOT mean that you have perceived or correctly interpreted it! This is where an ability to THINK enters the equation. People who just "see" or go by lists or books are the same people who are programmed to let the semtex suppository slip past while they're feeling up a nun! "The Book" is meant to be thrown, not "gone by".

I get paid big bucks to teach these things to other folks. How much are you offering? It involves a series of lessons. 40 hours of classroom just won't do it.

Considering this exchange, I find it hard to believe you have much to teach. I have only asked one simple question and that has basically tossed you into a tail spin. From the preview I am getting, I would hardly offer up dime one for any lessons.

One can only teach those who are willing to learn. Your motivations are obviously otherwise, so you are correct, I have nothing to teach you at all. I've answered your simple question, repeatedly, and because YOU don't like or can't grasp that answer, it somehow means that I'M in a tail spin? Hardly.

Basically what you are saying is that now that I have questioned your statement and you have realized you have no real answer, you will hide behind pretending your answer is worth money.

Cute.

Whether you question my statement is irrelevant to the value of it. That value is measured to some extent by my pay, but more so it is measured in men who are still breathing. I can't, for the life of me, figure out why you think your "questioning" my statements even begins to rise to a level of importance that measures against that.

Sorry, your opinion just doesn't count for as much as you'd like to think it does.

Neither will the simple answer you seek cut it. Simple answers are for simple minds. That isn't you, and it isn't me, so stop trying to boil it down to a word. That just won't work. If you're serious about wanting to get an education in how to ID suspicious folks, I'm sure there is a place somewhere nearby to where you are that can offer that education. I got mine at the police academy, and it took a year to get it. Then when I got out in the real world, I suddenly discovered that only a year didn't begin to cover it, it only gave me the basics to build upon.

You are twisting everything I said in order to pervert it into something more easily sidestepped. I never once asked that it be boiled down to one word and you know that.

I stand corrected. What you want is a pre-programmed list, a recipe or do-it-yourself bad guy ID kit. You want a set series of things that are definitive. It does not exist. One uses indicators to assess risk potential, one doesn't simply plug in an appearance, a "look" and have done with it.

Why is the sky blue?
Refraction.

Simple answers are often the best answers.

Yes, that's a simple answer, and an incorrect one, in that it is incomplete. I may be beginning to see why you are having so much trouble here if you think that is a complete answer as to why the sky is blue.

I went on to get more specialized training in narrower fields, such as counter-terrorism, but THAT training only gives one something to build upon as well. No class, no lesson, and no one sentence is EVER going to cover everything you will run into. It's only a foundation that you will have to apply logic to as situations arise.

Maybe see about getting that money back. I asked what to look for how many times now? You still have not given me an answer. In fact, in order to even try, you had to use a bank because apparently an airport would have been confusing? I am not convinced, sorry.

I didn't pay for it. Again, I haven't given you the answer you want. Too bad. The answers are all still the same, whether you recognize them or not, whether you like them or not. With that sort of mentality, that tendency to see the world as programmable with plug-in equations, and an inability to extrapolate and get beyond the programming, I'd say you would be a fine candidate for TSA job. It seems to be the norm there.

And you want all of that in a single sentence?

Again, this is not something I ever said and you know that.

That single sentence will be this, then "They are invisible, so you will have to look for invisible things, and look for those invisible things ALL THE TIME."

Strawman.

You completely invented an argument to attack. You do not need me for that. I never asked for one word, or one sentence. You do not even seem clear on which lie to go with.

That is precisely what you asked for, with an insistence that you are asking a "simple question", and your expectation of a simple answer. Even when provided with those answers, you have "seen" them (if you've bothered reading my posts at all), yet failed to PERCEIVE them.

There is no strawman here, no invented argument, and the only lie is the one where you claim to be seeking after an answer. If that were the case, you'd have already seen it here.

reply to post by nenothtu


You post is quite funny. Half of it is you basically telling me I am too stupid to understand your answer. The other half is you whining that you have answered me. You know what is still missing? The answer. Since I am so stupid, how about you direct me to the post where you provided this answer. Quote it, underline it, tell me which page and which post. If you want to call me stupid, that is fine. Personal attacks on the web are kind of lost on me. It would just carry much more weight if you could just once show me where this magical answer is you claim to have provided yet does not exist anywhere.

I am going to take a wild guess and say that you resort to personal attacks and whining because that is about all you have. Seems just giving an answer would have been easier. Please do not waste another post claiming you answered me without showing me where exactly to find this answer.

Originally posted by ericsnow
If this doesn't make your blood boil then you have no soul.

If I had any children and they tried that #. I would be busting sculls. America is Way out of control. If this # were to happen out on the street. You would be arrested for some kind of sexual assult. We need to get rid of the TSA and those full body xray machines.

reply to post by Schrecken Licht

Totally agree with you,
love the name by the way , the thing I'm seeing most here is arguments for the sake of arguing only though,
there needs to be some control, some input from us collectively to at least make an attempt at gaining control,
why arent there other methods being proposed, or alternatives being loudly promoted?
I started a thread that I thought would bring ideas in from anyone and everyone but it seems that people complaining is just what people want.



www.abovetopsecret.com...

More dramatic over dramatization!

Watch the video again, the whole process takes 30 seconds, the little boys Father is standing present and doesn't seem to have a problem.

There is no way to tell from that video whether the young boy's testicles were touched or not although it appears to me that they weren't and he was given the simple pat down each side of the legs.

Apparently the boys shirt was removed by his Father as he knew the child was about to be searched and he wanted to speed up the process.

The TSA agent actually unfolds the shirt, hands it to the boy and appears to pat him on the head after the pat down.

Absolutely not a problem here what so ever, if you look view something with an expectation you'll see what you want to see.

When you use a little objectivity and common sense you'll realise that this is a simple 30 seconds procedure that hasn't harmed anyone.

By not taking into account the boys Father removed his shirt, (which makes you assume the TSA agents are the ones who removed it) and then slapping the video with a title like "TSA gropes youn boy's testicles while he is strip searched in front of everyone" is bound to cause a reaction and paint anyone in a negative light.

People should be less gullible.

reply to post by kyrebelyell2004


My question is... Why is his shirt off in the first place ? Even Law Enforcement would not do this to a minor out in public. If any such need was there, the child would be taken back to the station with the parental consent. But a kid? Come on...

Sadly, every system has places where sick people can enact their fantasies under the guise of ''officialdom.'' Law becomes very selective when it happens.

Most of you sound like compete idiots with all your wailing and meowing about a search. That kid wasn't groped or molested he was searched plain and simple.

Most of you need to wake up from your dream of what America "used" to be like. That day is dead and gone. Yeah we enjoyed centuries of not having to worry about the evils other countries had to endure because of our separation from the rest of the world. With advances in tech, America is now as accessible as any country.

We have a bigger target on our backs because of people like you who obviously believe in American Exceptionalism. The rest of the world is getting tired of that attitude and want to bring America back to reality. We're no better than anyone else no matter what you thought.

Have any of you ever been searched? From the responses I would guess not. I've been searched and I've never seen pleasure on the officers face. If anything they have a look of "why me" on their face. I'm a straight male and I can't fathom any arousal I would get from searching women. There's nothing sexual about it. For every hot woman I would search there would be 10 beastly women, so that doesn't even out.

I predicted a long while ago that there would be more security measures put in place, there has to be. We have a wide open nation, as someone mentioned a terrorist could bomb a sporting event such as a football game where there are 60,000 people. Actually when I went to the game last week i was searched. I wasn't concerned so much with the search as the lack of effectiveness of the search.

Coming from someone of a criminal background, it's been practiced for years to hide your weapons or other illegal contriband on your woman or child.

Smarten up people or do you just enjoy whining....which I suspect most do.

reply to post by schlub


What's humiliating about being searched is the question I have? I mean where does the humiliation part come into play? Do you really think someone gets their rocks off searching you? Let me guess you believe a male gynecologist is always rocked up? What about the doctor that has to give 40 and over males their colon check?

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by Cassandra5Finish
reply to post by nenothtu

 

For example, when I was guarding a bank, I didn't pay nearly as much attention to the guy in a 3 piece suit carrying a deposit bag as I did the guy in a hoodie and sunglasses, who kept his hands in his pockets and seemed to be trying to look everywhere at once.

As a matter of fact, whenever someone came in to any place I was working, bank or whatever, and immediately focused on my uniform, I paid a lot more attention to that individual. I went on the theory that if someone wanted to know where I was, it would be good for me to know where they were. You can learn a lot about someone's intentions by watching them. That doesn't mean you pounce on them, it means you pay closer attention to see if they really NEED to be pounced upon.

In all those years, that theory NEVER let me down. Not once.

If that was indeed your technique you are a easy target for suckering. People who have brains try draw as least attention as possible. I know a guy that when he makes his drug runs, he dress in his three piece suit and glasses and rent as plain a car as possible. Reason being some officers, as you describe, are too busy stereotyping to see the real threat.

Originally posted by CKS8351
reply to post by kyrebelyell2004

 

My question is... Why is his shirt off in the first place ? Even Law Enforcement would not do this to a minor out in public. If any such need was there, the child would be taken back to the station with the parental consent. But a kid? Come on...

Perhaps the kids shirt being removed isn't a big deal to begin with. Have you never seen children running around shirtless? What is inappropriate about a child having their shirt off?